Should the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States be interpreted as a right to armed insurrection?

Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Arguments have been made that the Second Amendment was further reinforcement for the Declaration of Independence which reads, in part, …“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”.

While originally applied toward the British Crown who were the government at the time, distrust of authority carried over them to the new Federal government who many feared could potentially just as oppressive as the British had been.

But, it may be argued that because Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which enumerates the powers of Congress reads, in part: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” gives control of militias to the Federal Government and in doing so removes the right of the individual to own arms unless provided by said Federal Authority.

Thoughts?